trubster:
So… how do you get away with driving to the MOT centre for a test, the vehicle has not got a valid mot but it is pre booked. Perfectly legal but everyone is saying it invalidates insurance.
Suggest you re-read the thread - hardly anyone is saying that at all (in fact I think only one person has said it).
I know but some people are also saying it invalidates the non third party cover which is also wrong. Anyone can have an accident on the way to a MOT
trubster:
I know but some people are also saying it invalidates the non third party cover which is also wrong. Anyone can have an accident on the way to a MOT
It is “perfectly legal” to drive without full-comprehensive insurance!
trubster:
I know but some people are also saying it invalidates the non third party cover which is also wrong. Anyone can have an accident on the way to a MOT
I’ve spotted this scaremongering frequently being spouted on here too. From driving without DCPC, MOT or relevant driving category and it’s not correct - that isn’t to say no traffic police have ever issue FPs on that basis.
At the end of the day insurance is a private business arrangement between the insurer and the policyholder and up to the insurer to decide if they’re offering cover or not irrespective of the policy t&cs. If the customer isn’t happy with the cover and service they will go elsewhere. This is even more relevant for big company fleets where the insurer isn’t going to try and wriggle out of a claim for a shunt, on a technicality, if by doing so a massive customer goes elsewhere.
mick.mh2racing:
On my way home tonight and had a tug from a traffic car. He said my MOT ran out in November, I said I’d MOTed my car but had every document with me except the MOT.
mmmmmmm did that not seem strange. 
I changed insurance companies and they want copies of V5, and licences of all drivers. That’s why I had them.
limeyphil:
alphonsohall:
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
I had similar a long time ago. With there being no MOT i was summonsed for having no insurance.
But in my case, I simply forgot that it had ran out.
I got it tested the day after i got a tug and it passed. I contacted my insurance company and they said they would have covered me as the car was clearly in good order, They put it in writing for me and i just showed the letter at court.
That was the end of that.The insurance company had no choice - they cannot invalidate your 3rd party liability insurance on the grounds that you have no MoT certificate.
+1
Failure to hold a valid MOT is an offence under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and can result in a fine of up to £1000. The offence of driving without an MOT does not carry penalty points although most policies of insurance will become invalid without an MOT being in place, which could lead to an offence of driving without insurance which carries between 6 and 8 penalty points.
There are no private motor policies that would become invalid due to a lack of an MOT irrespective of what the policy says.
The Ombudsman says
"13. roadworthiness
Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused — or was significantly contributed to — because the vehicle was not roadworthy.
An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle — or parts of it — were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.
If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide — on the balance of probabilities — that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."
financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p … ation.html
Which in laymens terms means (Assuming the Insurer contains a requirement for the car to be "Roadworthy) the MOT has no relevance, it’s whether the car was “Unroadworthy” and whether it being “Unroadworthy” caused or significantly caused the accident. It would be up to the Insurer (Not the customer to prove otherwise) to prove the car was “Unroadworthy” and that this has caused or significantly caused the accident.
Should there be no MOT it may affect the value of the written off value of your car should the Ombudsman deem the car would not have passed an MOT.
None of the above affects the Insurers liability to pay claims to third parties which they have no option to under the Road Traffic Act.
It should be noted that an MOT states on it that it is only proof that the car was roadworthy as of the time of the MOT inspection, you could pass an MOT and the following day the car be “Unroadworthy”
Secondly
Insurers are regulated by the FCA whose regulations state the following.
"A rejection of a consumer policyholder’s claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is 2:2
(1) in relation to contracts entered into or variations agreed on or before 5 April 2013, for:2
(a) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed; or2
(b) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk; or2
(2) in relation to contracts entered into or variations agreed on or after 6 April 2013, for misrepresentation by a customer and the misrepresentation is not a qualifying misrepresentation; or2
(3) 2 breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure protection contract):
(a) under a ‘life of another’ contract, the warranty relates to a statement of fact concerning the life to be assured and, if the statement had been made by the life to be assured under an ‘own life’ contract, the insurer could have rejected the claim under this rule; or
(b) the warranty is material to the risk and was drawn to the customer’s attention before the conclusion of the contract
fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1
(My highlighting of the relevant parts)
Which basically means the same as the Ombudsmans view eg if there’s an accident and a requirement for the car to be “Roadworthy” then they cannot decline the claim unless the car being “Unroadworthy” is directly connected to the claim.
In laymens terms, an Insurer may have a requirement for you to have / use window locks, the Insurer could not decline a claim for storm damage if you had not used the window locks at the time of the storm damage.
I don’t know how courts are invoking no insurance for not having an MOT as they would either have to void the policy from inception for I assume non disclosure of not having an MOT which is unusual for an Insurer to ask about except for some certain policies. Even if they did there’s case law that except in very rare circumstance that the person would still be legally insured. The only other way they could say the customer is uninsured would be for them to have cancelled the Insurance the day before the incident involving the police. For obvious reasons the Road Traffic Act and also Insurers own policy wordings (Which are contracts) require them to act in specific ways to withdraw cover which in effect mean they have to write to their client to cancel the cover so by definition they cannot back date the cancellation. If you throw in that unless the cover is correctly cancelled, the RTA makes the Insurers statutory liable for third party claims and thus the driver is insured.
Here are a couple of relevant cases regarding Insurers voiding cover to inception but still being liable under the RTA
Durrant v MacLaren
Adams v Dunne
It should be noted that the Ombudsman and FCA generally apply only to the general public and not businesses, however if an Insurer did somehow manage to invalidate a policy (See my notes re voiding and cancelling) say a HGV policy. The employee would have a statutory defence against no insurance providing they were not (reasonably) aware the vehicle was not insured. So providing they did not know the vehicle was unroadworthy they could use the statutory defence
All as expected where there is a “Roadworthiness” clause in the policy (as indeed most do). But what would be the situation where there was a specific “policyholder must ensure a current MoT Test certificate is in force” clause? I’m sure I’ve come across them before now.
Roymondo:
All as expected where there is a “Roadworthiness” clause in the policy (as indeed most do). But what would be the situation where there was a specific “policyholder must ensure a current MoT Test certificate is in force” clause? I’m sure I’ve come across them before now.
I suspect it would be unenforceable as a court would probably view the clause as unreasonable in the same way ‘parking at own risk’ type signs are meaningless. Even if it was they could still do nothing about the third party risk only what they choose to pay out for your vehicle or losses.
Roymondo:
All as expected where there is a “Roadworthiness” clause in the policy (as indeed most do). But what would be the situation where there was a specific “policyholder must ensure a current MoT Test certificate is in force” clause? I’m sure I’ve come across them before now.
The must have an MOT clauses are entirely un enforcable.
The Insurers who write them into their policies are / should be aware they are not enforcable although their staff often try and impose them, this in my view is against the ethos of the FCA’s Treating Customers Fairly regulations.
I’ve helped a fair few of my own clients have their claims settled where they have no MOT and the Insurers refused payment, I’ve also helped a few posters on other forums have their claims settled where the Insurer refused due to having no MOT and the policy containing a must have an MOT clause.
For future reference, anyone whose Insurer refuses a claim for a private car/ motorbike etc for not having an MOT and the policy contains a must have an MOT clause. You simply need to send a letter (Ideally by recorded delivery) marked “Official Complaint” and refer to ICOBS 8.1.2.3 and the Ombudsmans guidance. The Insurer is duty bound to properly investigate the matter and report back within 8 weeks. Most senior staff know the clause is un enforceable so will allow the claim, if this does not work make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
If you’re in a rush, you can often go straight to the Ombudsman who will often ring the Insurer and point out to them the glaring mistake they’re making which normally works